The next day, Rod Ponton, the prosecutor mentioned in the video
and article, sent us the letter below, which he also posted as
a comment on this Facebook
post.

My response:

1. Rod Ponton is incorrect in stating that Ilana Lipsen
pled guilty to three felonies. She pled guilty to one felony, which
received a deferred adjudication, while the other two felony
charges were dropped.

The language in her plea papers stating that the plea is "free
and voluntary" is boilerplate. The question of whether Lipsen felt
she had any choice other than to take a plea deal is one the
article leaves up to interpretation. Previous plea deals offered to
Ms. Lipsen all included multiple years in jail. A deferred
adjudication, where the prosecutor gets to claim a victory but the
defendant avoids prison and the charges against her mother were
dropped, is likely the best deal she was ever going to get without
incurring more financially crippling legal fees.

2. According to documents provided to me by Ponton himself,
the three substances deemed chemical analogues of controlled
substances were seized from The Purple Zone in 2012. According to
the reporting of Scot Briggs in the Alpine Avalanche and
confirmed by Lipsen's lawyer, these only became illegal in Texas
once they were banned federally by the Synthetic Drug Abuse
Prevention Act, which was signed into law by President Obama in
July 2012, but not in effect until January 2013.

As Briggs reported:

Reading the list of substances listed under Penalty Group 2-A of
the Texas Health and Safety Code is a little like trying to
decipher the ingredients in a Twinkie—ethylamine, phencyclidine,
ibogaine, methylenedioxy amphetamine—but the three chemicals listed
on the search warrant, MAM-2201, XLR-11, or UR-144 are not there by
name. These chemicals did not become controlled substances until
President Obama signed the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act
(SDAPA) in July 2012.

The first time the Purple Zone was searched and samples seized
was on March 23, 2012, before these substances were controlled.

The only way Ponton can justify the statement "these drugs are
illegal under Texas law in effect at the time of the searches" is
by declaring the substances illegal per the Controlled
Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986. A major portion of
the article described the problematic nature of this law, and how
its subjectivity leads to people being prosecuted for possessing
products they believe to be legal.

3. Ponton is correct to point out that he was not the
district attorney in 2012, though nowhere in the article did I
state that he was. It is worth noting that despite being raided and
arrested in 2012, Lipsen was not indicted until Ponton took office
in January 2013. Indeed, she
was one of the first people indicted after he took
office.

4. Ponton is correct that the May 2014 "Purple Zone raid"
was a federal effort and Ponton did not file any charges against
Lipsen as a result of this raid. However, members of local law
enforcement, including the Alpine Police Department and Brewster
County Sheriff's Office, participated in the raid.

Most crucially, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) used a
Brewster County search warrant, ordered by Ponton, as justification
for searching The Purple Zone.

5. See my rebuttal to the second point.

6. Reason TV presented Lipsen's characterization of
anti-Semitic abuse by some in the town of Alpine as her own words
and cited other sources who attested to the unpopularity of Ilana
Lipsen and her store among a significant portion of the town's
populace.

7. Factually, Lipsen has not been found guilty. She entered
a guilty plea as part of a deferred adjudication, which means that
she has been convicted of no crime and will remain so provided she
satisfactorily completes a probationary period.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

I don't know how it would be done, but we need to figure out a
way to get rid of immunity and to have a separate, uninterested
body at the state or local level that would have the authority to
sanction or fire misbehaving cops and prosecutors. This IA garbage
will never fly, and fellow prosecutors and judges will never do
anything about their prosecutor brothers (aren't most judges former
prosecutors?). The justice system in this country disgusts me.

Another thought would be to impose fiduciary duties on
prosecutors. Voluntarily withhold evidence? Major fines or jail
time. Continue a prosecution against a defendant you know to be
innocent? Lot's of jail time. Etc.

I was thinking along the lines of a civilian review board, but
with real teeth. Strike the stuff about jail time. I do think
prosecutors and cops do deserve jail time in many cases, but it
should be pursuant to the criminal justice system, as flawed as it
may be.

(Though some might deserve the "justice" delivered by such a
committee.)

Exactly the sort of bigoted double standard one would expect
from somebody like you still butthurt over being convicted for a
crime they admitted to have committed

Fortunately the public supports the police and the legal system
has set up a reasonable system of qualified immunity that works
very well in giving cops due process and protecting them from
malicious prosecutions and yet holding them properly accountable
for criminal behavior

On the other hand prosecutors and judges have absolute immunity
and I personally think that absolute immunity is too strong a
protection others may disagree

I cannot figure out if you actually take seriously what you just
said, particularly the "Public supports the police" and "the legal
system has set up a reasonable system of qualified immunity that
works very well in giving cops due process..."

And, by the way, if you do believe it, head into Furgeson,
please, without your weapons and armor, and hold up a sign that
says just that. See what people there think of your public support
of the police and police immunity giving due process.

Once I worked through and figured out what you are actually
trying to say, I can't help but assume you are being sarcastic.
Surely no right-minded individual would actually believe this. You
are either being farsical or so entrenched in your own privilage
that you can't see beyond your nose.

The Constitution bears all the reference to due process
required. I fail to see how giving police additional rights with
reduced culpability is anything other than a travesty of justice
and the creation of a privileged legal class.

Only if by public you mean other cops. You are the public too,
jackass, despite you and your fellow retards attempting to drive a
wedge between yourselves and your employers by using a very
pejorative "civilian" as a descriptor. As a veteran, I find it
detestable that you chickenshits would try to place yourselves in
the same light as the people who actually go into battle with
people who are actually trying to kill them instead of drawing down
and shooting 80 year old men pulling canes out of the beds of their
pickup trucks or tossing flashbangs into children's cribs.

I come from a family of vets. I share your disgust at the
appropriation of language by people who have not only stopped
protecting the citizenry and started terrorizing them, but directly
state they have NO duty to protect.

I'm sure there are flaws, but I have an idea that prosecutor and
public defender should be one job where you spend half of your time
doing each. And they would be rewarded only if they do well at both
parts of the job.

It seems that DA Ponton holds the Lillian Hellman Chair among TX
DA's:
Every word he says is a lie including 'and' and 'the'.
It would seem that all he wanted to do was just to fuck her one
last time;
and he did, royally.

Good article. under the ultimate point about deferred
prosecution or deferred adjudication as to whether that is
tantamount to guilt it is somewhat arguable either way and even
legal references like legal dictionaries et cetera come to somewhat
different conclusions on this aspect of the law

It is common and entirely reasonable for a prosecutor to
consider a deferred prosecution is a victory similar to a guilty
plea since the person does have to admit guilt as part of that kind
of plea and waive the same rights that a guilty person does

On the other hand once a person completes the requirements of
the agreement they customarily get an expungement which basically
is the equivalent of saying the guilty plea never happened and even
in questionnaires etc. they do not have to admit to a conviction
since it typically does not count as one

Principles are one thing and it's clear that she admitted guilt
etc. and on the other hand practicality is important and if you are
risking some serious jail time and are offered a deal where you can
avoid all jail time even if you consider yourself innocent it's
understandable that somebody would plead guilty

I've seen cops do the same thing and of course people here would
instantly say it was proof of their guilt and not in this case but
either way the same concepts apply

Analog laws are difficult because retailers or drug users for
that matter should not have to be experts in chemistry in order to
figure out if the substance they are using or selling is regal
under the analog laws

Usually prosecutors or Police Department will send some sort of
letter to smoke shops etc. when the law changes offering them a
chance to dispose of the contraband

Ultimately in my opinion neither side is entirely right or
entirely wrong and much of how you interpret it and which You do
agree with comes down to subjective things more so then objective
things

Either way it's an excellent article and proof that at least
something that reason does has some real world effect

You truly are a piece of shit Dunphy. I'm sure you know that,
but I'm just repeating it. You take an article about a woman who's
been screwed over by the legal system and use it to push your "cops
are so wonderful!" spiel.

You know why these people, who've done nothing wrong, end up
having to plead guilty to bullshit charges? Because cops like you
believe they have to justify their existence by arresting more
people (and as a bonus they get to use their toys, since they're
too chickenshit to use them against somebody who's actually
dangerous).

my co-worker's mother-in-law makes $84 /hr on the internet . She
has been without work for eight months but last month her paycheck
was $21951 just working on the internet for a few hours. check out
the post right here....
➜➜➜➜➜➜➜➜ www.paygazette.com

You are splitting hairs here. Claim that she is not a convicted
felon because she accepted deferred adjudication is crap. What she
accept was to be punished for committing a crime and in return, the
conviction will not appear on her record. She still broke the law.
Seems the intent of the article is attack the DA and police while
pretending the criminal in the case has somehow bee railroaded.
Sounds alot like something progressives would be arguing, not
libertarians.

The weakest part of this is the idea that a guilty plea is not a
guilty plea. "Factually, Lipsen has not been found guilty. She
entered a guilty plea as part of a deferred adjudication" -- the
second sentence means that actually she has been found guilty,
factually.

Pleading guilt is the same as being found or judged guilty? Is
that sorta like signing a written statement to the effect that one
has not been pressured to sign said statement somehow magically
makes it true? Words have magic powers? (sniff) I think I smell a
damned Liberal/Progressive.

I agree with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to
your incoming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be
adequate, for the wonderful clarity in your writing.It is
imperative that we read blog post very carefully.